Kessil

Lighting upgrade question

[quote author=iani link=topic=5856.msg73728#msg73728 date=1231617977]
Erin T5s are much more efficient than PCs.
Halides are actually less efficient than T5s.
[/quote]

I've yet to see any hard data that supports those statements.
 
T5 > PC is easy to prove.
T5 > MH isn't as easy since you have to consider light threshold and focusing (that shimmer you see)
 
Tony do you remember when the a link to the data were posted on the planted tank forum. I just can't find it right now.
 
[quote author=patchin link=topic=5856.msg73708#msg73708 date=1231610426]
Matt,
What good t5s can you get for $400? Are you glad you when with MH, assuming you did?
[/quote]
Hey Steve,

You can get a T5 retro from ReefGeek with lights, SLRs, encaps and 3 ballasts for $404.10 Here's the link:
Reef Geek 6x54W T5 High Output

Myself I'd go with the IceCap version, but the non-IC version will do just fine.

Now, on my setup, I'm still running mainly T5s (6x24" and 2x39") but I also am running 1x250W 20K XM on a L3 mini. I get most of my light from the T5s, but I get a good amount of "shimmer" from the MH. I'd say I'm very happy with the setup but I wish I had two more Fuji Purples and two less daylights. But still, the color is good and growth has been terrific.
 
[quote author=pixelpixi link=topic=5856.msg73735#msg73735 date=1231619438]
[quote author=iani link=topic=5856.msg73728#msg73728 date=1231617977]
Erin T5s are much more efficient than PCs.
Halides are actually less efficient than T5s.
[/quote]
I've yet to see any hard data that supports those statements.
[/quote]
I'd say it's pretty easy to say T5 is more efficient than MH. I don't have any "data" to support it but in my tank I'd need 2x250W MH to cover the whole thing and get enough lumens. I could get the same amount from 8x54W T5s. I mean, we all know T5s are more direct in their lighting but there is more than just efficiency. MH do have broader spectrums even if rated at particular "K" values and they do penetrate deeper, cover more area and shine at multiple angles(the shimmer) which does encourage growth. I think farmers like them because they can cover a wide area better and usually grow out tanks are very shallow. Once you start looking at the deep values of our size tanks then MH starts to lose out to T5s. But again I second guess myself here. I guess what I am saying is:
For MOST aquariums T5s will be more efficient than MH. However, depending on the size of the tank MH lights (with proper reflectors) can be a better choice. I mean, look at Dudleys 36" wide tank. Anything that wide will benefit from MH. An 18" wide tank that is only 24" deep will be better served with T5s, and so on and so on, etc...
 
Man, so tempting...I don't know if I can convince my wife to drop another $500 on lights. Although...Matt's cost calculations may very well do it!

Mike
 
I have a wife as well so I'm getting good at these "creative" calculations. ;) Don't forget to mention it will keep your house cooler in the summer. ;D
 
4X85=340 watts
6X85= 510 watts. That's a lot of power . Wouldn't it be better to run 2 250 MH than 6X85 t5? Or 6X54=320, if the bulbs aren't overdriven. Or is it better to overdrive 4 or run 6 normally? Just trying to figure things out.
 
IMO its better to run 6 normally than overdrive 4. Whenever you overdrive you loose some efficiency. Also running 6 bulbs will give you more options with bulb configuration.
 
I;ve never been a fan of overdriving. I'd rather get 6x54 with good reflectors. 6 bulbs means you can "blend" your color to your taste better. 4 is harder to do that with.
 
Hey Steve,

The ovedrive capabilities of IC ballasts are more theoretical than actual so don't take them as gospel truth. I tested my ballast draw against a normal ballast and saw that it probably does overdrive the bulbs but not quite as much as it is rumored, especially when you get to the longer bulbs. Also, you don't really "need" IC ballasts and that possible extra wattage for any tank unless you want light to get down deep in the tank. You could easily keep SPS in a tank with a normal ballast and T5s but only in the top half of the tank. How deep is your tank? I'm assuming 24"? The IC ballast will allow your light to penetrate deeper in a 24" tank but at the higher points normal ballasts are fine. I prefer IC ballast not because of the ability to overdrive but I like the "clean" power they provide the bulbs. This is supposed to make the bulbs last a little longer because they fire up better where most of the bulb life is taken. You can see this when an IC ballast fires up. IC ballasts fire bulbs immediately instead of having a slight delay like normal ballasts.

So, I'm assuming your tank is 24" deep and 18" wide. With this I would run 6x54w regardless of ballasts to get good spread across the tank and help balance color (I found 4 bulbs hard to get my desired color mix but 6 is great). If you are only growing softies/low light LPS down deep and don't have any clams then normal ballasts will be fine. Plus you get three ballasts so you have the ability to gradually turn on and off the lights in pairs of two. If you want more penetration you could get a 4x54w with an IC 660 and a 2x54w normal. This would give you 2 dawn/dusk lights and 4 daylight bulbs.
 
The "new" tank is 48 x 20 tall x 24 front to back. We would love to be able to keep a clam and easy sps, but mostly lps and zoas.
 
24" wide you will need 6 bulbs to get enough spread. But you don't "need" IC ballasts for a tank that is only 20" deep. If it were me I'd get these bulbs:
F->B
ATI Blue+
UVL 75/25
ATI Blue+
Fiji Purple
ATI Blue+
Aqua Blue Special

Now, I suggest these bulbs because you can always get a 10K bulb here at an LFS, but most places don't carry any of these bulbs .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top